Yahoo: Jesse Ventura sues TSA

[Madison Redskin]

The pat downs and extra security are a joke and an impractical delay. They are trying to eliminate a terrorist being able to take over a plane. Sealing off the ****pit, adding procedures which prevent the door from ever being opened during flight, adding monitoring inside the plane, all take care of that.

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

[War Paint]

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

Which is probably a 1 out of a 10.5 million chance of happening in the first place.

[Madison Redskin]

Which is probably a 1 out of a 10.5 million chance of happening in the first place.

So, then, do you propose that we don't screen passengers for such explosives?

[Corcaigh]

I don't buy the "if we can't do everything, we shouldn't do anything" logic. Plus, luggage and freight are screened and these scanners are being rolled out to other airports.

But that's not the choice - serious threats go unaddressed so that the TSA can spend many billions looking for threats that aren't real, all in pursuit of 'security theater' ... the pretense of doing a good job.

Any investigation should be on behavior. Unless you have suspicion that the five year old boy going through security is a threat he should not be strip-searched. Likewise with Jesse Ventura.

Meanwhile the underpants bomber was a known radical who was turned in by his own father, a respected businessman, but we chose to allow him to fly.

[War Paint]

So, then, do you propose that we don't screen passengers for such explosives?

Metal detectors alone are fine. You can't have 100% safety for every single thing in your life. We're all going to bite the dust one day. 1 out of 10.5 million chance......it's not exactly russian roulette.

[Madison Redskin]

Metal detectors alone are fine. You can't have 100% safety for every single thing in your life. We're all going to bite the dust one day. 1 out of 10.5 million chance......it's not exactly russian roulette.

Metal detectors would catch knives and guns, but not most explosives.

[War Paint]

Metal detectors would catch knives and guns, but not most explosives.

You are 20 times more likely getting struck by lightening.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Jesse has a lot of good ideas, and, of course, some silly ones. But, overall I think he's a breath of fresh air.

That being said, I think he's got a big battle here. Basically, I think there is pretty strong precedent set that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights when you choose to travel by plane.

[mojobo]

Just because something is a privilege instead of a right doesn't mean the government has a right to do an unwarranted search of you. Just like it isn't your privilege to use a phone, but that shouldn't give the government to tap into your conversations when it wants. If the airline itself wants to run these security measures then that is fine as it has every right to implement whatever security measures it feels is best for its company and if people disagree with the method then they are free to use another airline. If the government wants to search somebody they need to have a reason to suspect that a person has committed a crime or is a threat. Flying on an airplane does not show or even hint that I might commit a crime.

[War Paint]

Jesse has a lot of good ideas, and, of course, some silly ones. But, overall I think he's a breath of fresh air.

That being said, I think he's got a big battle here. Basically, I think there is pretty strong precedent set that you waive your Fourth Amendment rights when you choose to travel by plane.

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just because something is a privilege instead of a right doesn't mean the government has a right to do an unwarranted search of you. Just like it isn't your privilege to use a phone, but that shouldn't give the government to tap into your conversations when it wants. If the airline itself wants to run these security measures then that is fine as it has every right to implement whatever security measures it feels is best for its company and if people disagree with the method then they are free to use another airline. If the government wants to search somebody they need to have a reason to suspect that a person has committed a crime or is a threat. Flying on an airplane does not show or even hint that I might commit a crime.

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 02:59 PM ----------

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

Thanks for asking a ridiculous question.

I'll tell you what though, if you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government can NOT conduct X-ray scans of people, and also where it says that the government doesn't have the power to police "airports" then I'll answer your question.

If you really need some semblance of an answer though, the Constitution gives the federal government "police power" to maintain order, and gives it power to regulate "interstate commerce." The latter may be used a lot, but certainly you'd agree that air travel qualifies as interstate commerce.

The Constitution has all sorts of competing interests within it. It wasn't written to be a cook book for every single scenario for the next thousand years. There are things in the future that we can't even think of today that have to be forced into the Constitution. You can't ask such silly questions.

[Mickalino]

He's simply doing this so he has more material for his Conspiracy Theory show.

[War Paint]

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 02:59 PM ----------

Thanks for asking a ridiculous question.

I'll tell you what though, if you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government can NOT conduct X-ray scans of people, and also where it says that the government doesn't have the power to police "airports" then I'll answer your question.

If you really need some semblance of an answer though, the Constitution gives the federal government "police power" to maintain order, and gives it power to regulate "interstate commerce." The latter may be used a lot, but certainly you'd agree that air travel qualifies as interstate commerce.

The Constitution has all sorts of competing interests within it. It wasn't written to be a cook book for every single scenario for the next thousand years. There are things in the future that we can't even think of today that have to be forced into the Constitution. You can't ask such silly questions.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's pretty clear to me. X-rays and pat downs are clearly searches.

[Popeman38]

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job. People need to quit looking at everything that makes their life easier as a right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Most of this applies to a person and his belongings. An airport or airplane is not yours. Try to enter the White House without major security checks. What happens? You are denied entry, and if you make a scene most likely arrested. Is that against the law? What about access to museums? The National Mall? None of this is private property. It is public property. Is it your "right" to have unchecked access to all of these places?

[Mickalino]

Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job.

No, you don't. You're employer makes that choice.

[War Paint]

Where is flying listed as an unalienable right? Flying is a choice. Even if you fly for business, you chose to take that job. People need to quit looking at everything that makes their life easier as a right.Most of this applies to a person and his belongings. An airport or airplane is not yours. Try to enter the White House without major security checks. What happens? You are denied entry, and if you make a scene most likely arrested. Is that against the law? What about access to museums? The National Mall? None of this is private property. It is public property. Is it your "right" to have unchecked access to all of these places?

No, people need to quit being cowards and giving up their rights to feel safe from a terrorist boogeyman. 1 out of 10.5 million chance of running into a terrorist incident.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, you don't. You're employer makes that choice.

You choose to work for that employer.

[mojobo]

Ok. But if you waive your rights, you can't complain about them. That's called waiver.

I don't really disagree with you in spirit, but I think the law is pretty clear.

But that doesn't give the government the right to withhold a "privilege" if you don't waive that right. Only the airlines can withhold the privilege of using their airline just as I can take my money elsewhere if I feel the security goes too far. I don't think any airline would want to be known for too loose of security since most people want to feel safe while flying, but I also don't think any airline would want to specifically be known for groping and taking full body pictures of its customers. Again if the government has reason to believe that a specific individual probably going to commit a criminal offense then by all means search, grope, seize property, etc. But if they do not have a reason to believe this and cannot demonstrate their reason in court then don't obstruct people from carrying about their business.

[Mickalino]

I like Jesse but he's going about this the wrong way. Flying is a privilege not a right. If you don't like airport security procedures then don't fly.

A person has a right not to be molested regardless what privilege they choose to do

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 08:46 PM ----------

You choose to work for that employer.

Record numbers of people are unemployed, and have been for up to 2 years or more, and many about to lose much of what they own as a result, and you want to tell them that they have a "choice" in the employer they work for ?

Many of those people apply for hundreds of jobs and are lucky to get a single job offer in a year's time.

[mojobo]

You choose to work for that employer.

So if my employer requires I fly somewhere the government has a right to grope me and take body scan pictures of me?

[Madison Redskin]

4th Amendment

It's pretty clear to me. X-rays and pat downs are clearly searches.

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit all searches (e.g., searching people at the border, in airports, etc.). The 4th Amendment forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Numerous courts have ruled that it is not unreasonable for the government to search individuals who wish to fly on an airline to search for guns, knives, explosives, drugs, etc. Most people agree with those rulings, even if there is controversy regarding body scans.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 04:29 PM ----------

So if my employer requires I fly somewhere the government has a right to grope me and take body scan pictures of me?

That's exactly right. If you don't like it, you can always travel by train, boat, or car ... or you can take it up with your employer. When do you think the government should have the right to search people?

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 04:34 PM ----------

You are 20 times more likely getting struck by lightening.

A lightning strike won't kill 300-400 people in one fell swoop. A lightning strike won't cause people to avoid traveling and hurt the tourism industry. A lightning strike won't result in a plane knocking down two skyscrapers, killing thousands of people, and sending the economy into a tailspin. A lightning strike won't kill hundreds of military officers working in the Pentagon.

While it is highly unlikely that any of us will be killed in a terrorist attack on an airplane, I believe that the potential consequences of terrorist attacks warrant the government asking the public to deal with mildly obnoxious lines and searches at the airport.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Where in the Constitution does it say Amendments are waived when traveling?

You do not always have the expectation of privacy.

[elkabong82]

Not if a passenger has explosives strapped to his **** and just wants to blow up the plane.

Please explain how someone with explosives would get them onto a plane without them being noticed in their luggage when it's screened or how, if it's on their person, they get it through a metal detector when the detonation system has metal in it. That would be highly sosphisticated technology to be able to get it through, which is not easily available. Why can't they have dogs at the airports that can sniff that stuff out?

And as others in here pointed out, how long until these intrusive security measurements find their way into metros, government buildings, schools, etc.? Being dismissive of it only adds to the problem. Airport security is considered a joke by most, heck even Obama cracked on them in the State of he Union address. Doesn't matter if it's viewed as a priviliege, that doesn't excuse a violation of rights. Driving is a privilege, should cops be able to pull you out of your car and pat you down just because? The "deal with it" argument excuses rights violations and is rudely dismissive of the majority in America who have a problem with the intrusiveness of airline security. The impracticality of such has also been a financial burden on airlines, which they pass on to the customer in the forms of baggage costs and other small extra charges that previously were free.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 05:38 PM ----------

You do not always have the expectation of privacy.

But you should always have the expectation of reasonable searches and just cause for such searches.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 05:47 PM ----------

I believe that the potential consequences of terrorist attacks warrant the government asking the public to deal with mildly obnoxious lines and searches at the airport.

I believe the potential consequences should be forcing the government to initiate innovative security measures at airports, not just letting them play bouncer essentially. There are other preventative measures that can be taken, the current form of security is an extreme reactionary type. Everyone is serached as thoroughly as possible, which drives up costs and wait time. It's impractical. There are better security measures and monitoring technology that can be used.

I suggested ealier better security in the ****pits themselves, which had such been implemented before 2001, the hijackers would have been unsuccesful in taking over the plane and controlling where it went. You said it wouldn;t stop them from bringing explosives on and blowing up the plane. But there are detection devices for explosives, heck, you can have dogs there for that just as there are dogs for drugs. I'd much prefer walking by a dog than being violated in a pat down or having a full body scan done to me.

[mojobo]

That's exactly right. If you don't like it, you can always travel by train, boat, or car ... or you can take it up with your employer. When do you think the government should have the right to search people?

The right to search comes when there is probable cause that an individual committed or is attempting to commit a crime. Buying a plane ticket and showing up at an airport does not demonstrate probable cause that I am going to commit a criminal offense. Again if an individual airline wants to make this part of their own security efforts to keep their airlines safe then that is fine. If one wants to knowingly submit themselves to the invasive screening for their own personal safety that is their choice. If an airline is too loose with its security then they risk losing customers due to an increase in perceived security risk. If an airline is too invasive with its security measures or the security causes too long of a wait to get onto flights then they too risk losing customers. Our government can't just claim a right to search people for using a specific industry for travel. Unless the government shows probable cause that an individual committed or going to commit a crime the government has no right to search them. We do not have to prove our innocence to use a service, the government has to prove our guilt before they can deny it to us.

[Madison Redskin]

The right to search comes when there is probable cause that an individual committed or is attempting to commit a crime. Buying a plane ticket and showing up at an airport does not demonstrate probable cause that I am going to commit a criminal offense. Again if an individual airline wants to make this part of their own security efforts to keep their airlines safe then that is fine. If one wants to knowingly submit themselves to the invasive screening for their own personal safety that is their choice. If an airline is too loose with its security then they risk losing customers due to an increase in perceived security risk. If an airline is too invasive with its security measures or the security causes too long of a wait to get onto flights then they too risk losing customers. Our government can't just claim a right to search people for using a specific industry for travel. Unless the government shows probable cause that an individual committed or going to commit a crime the government has no right to search them. We do not have to prove our innocence to use a service, the government has to prove our guilt before they can deny it to us.

So, we shouldn't search people at our borders? Or when they want to visit a government building, e.g., the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, etc.?